WP/48975/2025 of R.MUKESH Vs THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS REPRESENTED on 25 August 2026

O R D E R

( Order

of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)

The present writ of mandamus has been instituted directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Junior Bailiff with effect from the date of the promotion of his juniors on 29.04.2022 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Night Watchman vide order dated 18.07.2017 and he joined in the said post on 21.07.2017. He completed his probation on 20.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Office Assistant vide order dated 04.12.2021. The claim of the writ petitioner is that the posts of Watchman, Masalchi and Office Assistant carry an identical scale of pay and therefore, promotions to the post of Junior Bailiff/Record Clerk, as well as the post of Junior Assistant, are to be granted based on a common seniority list.

W.P.NO.48975 OF 2025

3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed by stating that the post of Masalchi, Watchman, Sweeper (Cleanliness Worker) falls under Category 44, 11 and 12 of Class IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service (TNBS) Rules respectively and the qualification fixed for these posts are “Must be able to read and write Tamil” but the qualification for the post of Office Assistant is fixed as “a pass in 8th standard and the post of Office Assistant falls under category 5 of Class III of TNBS. As per Rule 3 of the TNBS Rules, appointments to the post of Office Assistant in Class III shall be made by way of direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other service or “by way of transfer from Class IV”. Further, as per the proviso to Rule 5(2)(a), transfer from a Class IV post like Masalchi/Watchman/Sweeper to the Class III post of Office Assistant requires a pass in VIII Standard and completion of probation or not less than 1 year service in a Class IV post. Moreover, the job nature of the two cadres varies vastly and the post of Masalchi, Watchman, Sweeper has no Public Holidays defined for the Government Servants and they are expected to work on all days, full-time and eligible only for the compensatory off whereas the post of Office Assistant has no such restrictions.

W.P.NO.48975 OF 2025

4. This Court is of the considered view that when there are variations in the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the posts of Office Assistant and Masalchi / Watchman / Sweeper and when the posts fall under different Classes under the Service Rules, the question of claiming promotion based on a combined seniority does not arise at all. Therefore, promotions are to be granted to employees belonging to the same Class under the Rules and they cannot compare themselves to employees working in another Class where the qualifications prescribed for the post are distinct and different.

5. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have already prepared a combined seniority list based on the classifications made under the Rules. As per the classification and amongst the Class of employees, a combined seniority list has been prepared to consider employees for grant of promotion based on seniority. Since preparation of seniority is based on the nature of the post and the Class under which that particular post is classified, there is no reason to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion, overlooking the names of other employees who are working in different categories.

W.P.NO.48975 OF 2025

6. Based on an erroneous interpretation of combined seniority, the writ petitioner was promoted and subsequently reverted, as a result of which, the salary paid to the petitioner is sought to be recovered. The petitioner is working under Class IV category and any recovery, at this juncture, would result in hardship. Therefore, the recovery of excess salary alone is set aside. Presently, the petitioner is working as an Office Assistant and the seniority has already been fixed as per the Rules in the combined seniority list published. If any excess salary is already recovered, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refund the same to the writ petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the relief relating to the promotion of the petitioner is declined.

7. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

25.08.2026 (1/2) Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK

W.P.NO.48975 OF 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK To

1. The Registrar General The High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge Combined Court Complex, Ariyalur. W.P.NO.48975 OF 2025 25.08.2026 (1/2)